What Would It Take for You to Vote for Biden?

[Nazeroth]

Imagine thinking Trump is a danger to “our democracy” while you rig your own election process

I rigged the process? Damn. I am better then I thought.

Im referring to the dnc

But i thought you could have reached that conclusion on your own

[Kannap]

Is this your main account? You are starting to sound like somebody else I know. Nevermind. Let’s look at your comments:



Ok. Explain. How am I better off with Trump?



I’m sorry is there an argument in there?



Again is there an argument in there?

Simple

The GOP Didn’t have to completley violate their democratic principles when putting him in power.

The DNC has demonstrated they cannot be trusted to run a democratic nation anymore.

The GOP has democratic principles?

[Nazeroth]

Simple

The GOP Didn’t have to completley violate their democratic principles when putting him in power.

The DNC has demonstrated they cannot be trusted to run a democratic nation anymore.

The GOP has democratic principles?

They didnt need to rig there own democratic process for Trump to be the nominee.

[Kannap]

The GOP has democratic principles?

They didnt need to rig there own democratic process for Trump to be the nominee.

They're too busy rigging America's democratic process.

[Libertango]

Trollzyn the Infinite wrote:
1. The PRC is not a Communist State, as it has shown absolutely zero interest in achieving Communism.
2. The CCP is not a Communist Party, as it has shown absolutely zero interest in achieving Communism.
3. Xi Jinping and his cronies are not Communists, as they have shown absolutely zero interest in achieving Communism.

How do we know this? Because the first step toward Communism is Socialism, and none of the aforementioned are even remotely Socialist in any way, shape, or form.

This confuses me. How was the CCP not a communist Party?

[The Black Forrest]

Is this your main account? You are starting to sound like somebody else I know. Nevermind. Let’s look at your comments:



Ok. Explain. How am I better off with Trump?



I’m sorry is there an argument in there?



Again is there an argument in there?

Simple

The GOP Didn’t have to completley violate their democratic principles when putting him in power.

The DNC has demonstrated they cannot be trusted to run a democratic nation anymore.

Voter suppression isn’t a violation? Even then; the GOP quickly sold out afterwards.

The DNC doesn’t run a democratic nation. Even then, do you think the GOP didn’t do any backroom deals for Trump?

[Albrenia]

Trollzyn the Infinite wrote:
1. The PRC is not a Communist State, as it has shown absolutely zero interest in achieving Communism.
2. The CCP is not a Communist Party, as it has shown absolutely zero interest in achieving Communism.
3. Xi Jinping and his cronies are not Communists, as they have shown absolutely zero interest in achieving Communism.

How do we know this? Because the first step toward Communism is Socialism, and none of the aforementioned are even remotely Socialist in any way, shape, or form.

This confuses me. How was the CCP not a communist Party?

Because they're intensely capitalist, brutally authoritarian and have done nothing towards moving towards actual Communism's end goal of a stateless society, mostly.

[Nazeroth]

Simple

The GOP Didn’t have to completley violate their democratic principles when putting him in power.

The DNC has demonstrated they cannot be trusted to run a democratic nation anymore.

Voter suppression isn’t a violation? Even then; the GOP quickly sold out afterwards.

The DNC doesn’t run a democratic nation. Even then, do you think the GOP didn’t do any backroom deals for Trump?

Why do you think Biden should win? Other than because “hes not trump”?

What does he stand for that he would actually implement that would help America?

[The Black Forrest]

Trollzyn the Infinite wrote:
1. The PRC is not a Communist State, as it has shown absolutely zero interest in achieving Communism.
2. The CCP is not a Communist Party, as it has shown absolutely zero interest in achieving Communism.
3. Xi Jinping and his cronies are not Communists, as they have shown absolutely zero interest in achieving Communism.

How do we know this? Because the first step toward Communism is Socialism, and none of the aforementioned are even remotely Socialist in any way, shape, or form.

This confuses me. How was the CCP not a communist Party?

Because they're intensely capitalist, brutally authoritarian and have done nothing towards moving towards actual Communism's end goal of a stateless society, mostly.

Heh. They even turned the caves Mao hid in for a period time into a tourist attraction and make money off it.

[The Black Forrest]

Voter suppression isn’t a violation? Even then; the GOP quickly sold out afterwards.

The DNC doesn’t run a democratic nation. Even then, do you think the GOP didn’t do any backroom deals for Trump?

Why do you think Biden should win? Other than because “hes not trump”?

What does he stand for that he would actually implement that would help America?

Would that change your view? I suspect no so why does it matter the reasons I will vote for Biden?

[Vetalia]

Heh. They even turned the caves Mao hid in for a period time into a tourist attraction and make money off it.

They had to force the PLA to divest its business interests because they were getting too distracted from their military responsibilities.

[Nakena]

Heh. They even turned the caves Mao hid in for a period time into a tourist attraction and make money off it.

They had to force the PLA to divest its business interests because they were getting too distracted from their military responsibilities.

Mission Creep Chinese style

[Gormwood]

Its dumb as fuck and just shows meetoo wasnt a serious movement

“Yah joe totally stuck his fingers up my pussy but boo hoo trump said women LET him do it so ima vote for joe!”

Because she thinks Trumps is a bigger mess then Biden she invalidated metoo? Are you just mad; she is going to vote for Biden?

There really isn’t a simple solution. You can be idealistic. You are foolish to think the world will be that way.

Don't you know that allowing the Republicans to block or undo progressive laws will magically bring about the leftist revolution? Us sleepy sheepy need to be punished for not clapping to BERNIE!

[Kannap]

Because she thinks Trumps is a bigger mess then Biden she invalidated metoo? Are you just mad; she is going to vote for Biden?

There really isn’t a simple solution. You can be idealistic. You are foolish to think the world will be that way.

Don't you know that allowing the Republicans to block or undo progressive laws will magically bring about the leftist revolution? Us sleepy sheepy need to be punished for not clapping to BERNIE!

I wish I liked Bernie as much as you do, I admire your commitment to talking about him 24/7.

[Alcala-Cordel]

Us sleepy sheepy need to be punished for not clapping to BERNIE!

It really seems like you have no idea what the left is/stands for, we're not a hivemind of Bernie supporters. Where do you get these weird ideas about the left? If you want to know who we are, try to find some sources besides PragerU and SJW OWNED compilation #23

[Mirjt]

What do you mean?

Its dumb as fuck and just shows meetoo wasnt a serious movement

“Yah joe totally stuck his fingers up her pussy but boo hoo trump said women LET him do it so ima vote for joe!”

The goal of MeToo was legitimate, it was to show how common sexual misconduct was and to have victims be believed or at least take allegations seriously and investigate. My problem with MeToo was that they only thought in terms of carceral feminism, them believing the answer to sexual harm was prosecution, policing, prisons, and punishment, when the answer should be rehabilitation, transformation, reconciliation (when feasible), education, social spending, etc... My problem with MeToo was that they mostly (not entirely) focused only on the needs of middle-class white women who worked for semi-prominant figures.

P.S. I support the following variant of feminism: Egalitarian, Intersectional, Inclusive, Non-Carceral (Abolitionist), Radical Feminism

[Godular]

Its dumb as fuck and just shows meetoo wasnt a serious movement

“Yah joe totally stuck his fingers up her pussy but boo hoo trump said women LET him do it so ima vote for joe!”

The goal of MeToo was legitimate, it was to show how common sexual misconduct was and to have victims be believed or at least take allegations seriously and investigate. My problem with MeToo was that they only thought in terms of carceral feminism, believing the answer to sexual harm was prosecution, policing, prisons, and punishment, when the answer should rehabilitation, transformation, reconciliation (when feasible), education, social spending, etc... My problem with MeToo was that they mostly (not entirely) focused only on the needs of middle-class white women who worked for semi-prominant figures.

P.S. I support the following variant of feminism: Egalitarian, Intersectional, Inclusive, Non-Carceral (Abolitionist), Radical Feminism

The biggest problem that I had with the whole MeToo thing was that folks have different views on what constitutes acceptable contact. Having read stories about this actor or that having touched a shoulder longer than was comfortable, yet not having said anything at the time, then coming back to accuse the guy/gal of sexual assault over that contact strikes me as going tremendously overboard.

Now, that doesn’t mean all the claims were unjustified. There was some fucked up shit that went down. However, it seemed to me that half (subjective approximation) of those claims could have just been a simple misunderstanding. My takeaway from the business is that it’d be wise to have clear boundaries, or to just communicate better.

[The Archregimancy]

Imagine thinking Trump is a danger to “our democracy” while you rig your own election process

Let's take this post at face value, and assume - for the sake of argument - that it accurately reflects the last two sets of Democratic Party primaries and caucuses, and that these were 'rigged' against Sanders, without questioning about what 'rigged' means in this context (the term covers a lot of ground, from mere institutional bias all the way to changing results - so there's good reason to treat the term with some care).

Why shouldn't the Democrats favour the candidate that's actually a member of the party in a purely internal process designed to choose their next de facto leader?

Sanders, in contrast, is a candidate who's not only not a member of the party, but has refused to join the party in the almost thirty years that he's served in the two houses of Congress, at best agreeing to caucus with them. It goes further; in his House and Senate elections, when he's been listed as a candidate for the Democratic Party in Vermont state primaries, he's always declined the party's nomination when he's won.

And yet he expects that same party to allow him to run for their presidential nomination, and to represent them in the most senior elected (if technically indirectly) position in the country.

I've always found it extraordinary that the Democrats have treated Sanders so well. It's a situation almost without precedent in modern US electoral politics. There are examples of parties drafting in or persuading a candidate with no strong record of party affiliation to run as their candidate (Eisenhower was courted by both parties in '52), but there can be few examples of serious candidates who've refused to represent a party at a national level for 30 years deciding that they're entitled to contest that party's presidential nomination.

Under the circumstances, I find it neither remarkable or noteworthy that the Democrats might have chosen to favour the candidates who've been an actual member of the party, with a long record of years of service to the party, over the candidate who's never been a member of the party, and indeed refuses to join the party. The primaries are an entirely internal party process with no constitutional status, and which have only really evolved into their modern form after the 1968 Democratic convention; parties are free to manage the process as they see fit. That's not a comment on the political positions of any candidate - merely an observation on the realities of party politics.

If, in 20 years' time, the Democrats are 'rigging' the primaries against longtime party stalwart and junior senator for New York Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in her bid for the nomination, then the progressive wing of the party will have genuine cause for complaint. But Sanders? It's frankly amazing he was allowed to be a serious candidate in the first place.

[Gormwood]

Imagine thinking Trump is a danger to “our democracy” while you rig your own election process

Let's take this post at face value, and assume - for the sake of argument - that it accurately reflects the last two sets of Democratic Party primaries and caucuses, and that these were 'rigged' against Sanders, without questioning about what 'rigged' means in this context (the term covers a lot of ground, from mere institutional bias all the way to changing results - so there's good reason to treat the term with some care).

Why shouldn't the Democrats favour the candidate that's actually a member of the party in a purely internal process designed to choose their next de facto leader?

Sanders, in contrast, is a candidate who's not only not a member of the party, but has refused to join the party in the almost thirty years that he's served in the two houses of Congress, at best agreeing to caucus with them. It goes further; in his House and Senate elections, when he's been listed as a candidate for the Democratic Party in Vermont state primaries, he's always declined the party's nomination when he's won.

And yet he expects that same party to allow him to run for their presidential nomination, and to represent them in the most senior elected (if technically indirectly) position in the country.

I've always found it extraordinary that the Democrats have treated Sanders so well. It's a situation almost without precedent in modern US electoral politics. There are examples of parties drafting in or persuading a candidate with no strong record of party affiliation to run as their candidate (Eisenhower was courted by both parties in '52), but there can be few examples of serious candidates who've refused to represent a party at a national level for 30 years deciding that they're entitled to contest that party's presidential nomination.

Under the circumstances, I find it neither remarkable or noteworthy that the Democrats might have chosen to favour the candidates who've been an actual member of the party, with a long record of years of service to the party, over the candidate who's never been a member of the party, and indeed refuses to join the party. The primaries are an entirely internal party process with no constitutional status, and which have only really evolved into their modern form after the 1968 Democratic convention; parties are free to manage the process as they see fit. That's not a comment on the political positions of any candidate - merely an observation on the realities of party politics.

If, in 20 years' time, the Democrats are 'rigging' the primaries against longtime party stalwart and junior senator for New York Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in her bid for the nomination, then the progressive wing of the party will have genuine cause for complaint. But Sanders? It's frankly amazing he was allowed to be a serious candidate in the first place.

More ironic hypocrisy. Sanders supporters who bitched about Clinton having an attitude of entitlement on the nomination expected Sanders should have gotten it this time.

[The Huskar Social Union]

Us sleepy sheepy need to be punished for not clapping to BERNIE!

It really seems like you have no idea what the left is/stands for, we're not a hivemind of Bernie supporters. Where do you get these weird ideas about the left? If you want to know who we are, try to find some sources besides PragerU and SJW OWNED compilation #23

Gormwood is utterly incapable of presenting an actual argument, all their posts are either thinly veiled vitriol or snide remarks with no basis in reality aimed at anyone who has a different view point or doesnt support Biden. And it only doubles down if you consistently call them out on it, so be prepared to be called MAGA head or some such in the near future.

[MGTOWia]

fify Covfefe

Thanks for providing my laugh of the day. You're hilarious

Not saying that President Trump is 100% certain of being re-elected (there is literally NOTHING Democrats won't do to seize and secure power), but when he wins, I hope you post a reaction video too. I've been watching the 2016 melt-downs for the last four years and they never get old.

If after presiding over the most corrupt, venal, criminal, callous, unrestrained US administration ever that narcissistic buffoon is re-elected I will gladly stipulate that the nation has finally got the government it deserves. But don't expect me to become sympathetic or sensitive to the feels of undereducated white men who find hundreds of years of privilege insufficient to salve their fragile egos, who then vote for race-baiting politicians proven to have no interest in them who will break any law, pack any court, gerrymander any district, collude with any adversary and jeopardize the health and prosperity of the nation to hang on to the last shred of political power. They made their bed, they can lie in it.

I was going to reply point by point to your post, but then it hit me: you are actually satirizing every pointy-headed ultra-extreme-leftwing college faculty member who knows nothing about everything and has the letters after his name to prove it. By regurgitating the most ridiculous, cliché-ridden diatribes they ever force-feed to classrooms crowded with young skulls full of mush, you are exposing exactly how ridiculous they are, as well as the extent to which they engage in projection. Well played, sir! I salute you.

[Ostroeuropa]

I'm not American, but since the Trump administration has protected the civil rights of citizens in a fashion that Joe Biden is explicitly saying he wishes to reverse, I would vote for Trump.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/05/0 ... ule-241715

This is especially the case as under the same rules Biden is pushing for universities, he should be considered a rapist and disbarred from being President.

There doesn't appear to be the same concrete and explicit declaration of an intent to pass a policy that will remove peoples civil rights from the Trump campaign as there is from the Biden campaign.

A democratic president can no longer be trusted in this regard until they purge their party of this hate movement. I suspect i'll now support down ballot democrats with the exception of the presidency, which should be republican. We can also hope that a second Trump administration might result in similar civil rights gains.

[The Black Forrest]

I'm not American, but since the Trump administration has protected the civil rights of citizens in a fashion that Joe Biden is explicitly saying he wishes to reverse, I would vote for Trump.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/05/0 ... ule-241715

This is especially the case as under the same rules Biden is pushing for universities, he should be considered a rapist and disbarred from being President.

There doesn't appear to be the same concrete and explicit declaration of an intent to pass a policy that will remove peoples civil rights from the Trump campaign as there is from the Biden campaign.

A democratic president can no longer be trusted in this regard until they purge their party of this hate movement. I suspect i'll now support down ballot democrats with the exception of the presidency, which should be republican. We can also hope that a second Trump administration might result in similar civil rights gains.

Wait. So you think Biden is a rapist and yet give Trump as pass?

[Gormwood]

I'm not American, but since the Trump administration has protected the civil rights of citizens in a fashion that Joe Biden is explicitly saying he wishes to reverse, I would vote for Trump.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/05/0 ... ule-241715

This is especially the case as under the same rules Biden is pushing for universities, he should be considered a rapist and disbarred from being President.

There doesn't appear to be the same concrete and explicit declaration of an intent to pass a policy that will remove peoples civil rights from the Trump campaign as there is from the Biden campaign.

A democratic president can no longer be trusted in this regard until they purge their party of this hate movement. I suspect i'll now support down ballot democrats with the exception of the presidency, which should be republican. We can also hope that a second Trump administration might result in similar civil rights gains.

Wait. So you think Biden is a rapist and yet give Trump as pass?

Because Biden is a gender traitor, duh.

[Fahran]

Him going back in time and bitch-slapping himself every time he thought it was acceptable to kiss, smell, or fondle a visibly uncomfortable woman or child against their will.

I'm voting for a third-party candidate in all likelihood. Or staying home.